Author
Topic: Catholicism [#2759] (Read 11641 times)

Hello, Most of your objections to the existence of a loving God seem to be based on modern-day American Christianity, which does not contextualize Biblical literature within history, philosophy, science, and anthropology as the Catholic church does. In fact, modern-day American Christianity, both in belief and practice, is indeed full of holes.However, the Catholic faith has answers to every objection to the "God of the Bible" that you have raised; and they're not puny justifications either. Can you please provide a list of the philosophers, scientists, historians, and anthropologists of whom you've read who have concluded that the God featured in Judeo-Christian literature exists? Since you are an "intelligent person living in the 21st century," I'm sure you've "take[n] some time to look at the data." Respectfully,[name removed]

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Sorry, can't help you. I didn't become an atheist because of any specific religion, but rather because I rejected all of them. If the catholics seem to think they've answered all questions, that's cute and all, but it doesn't address the ridiculousness of the concept. I don't care how many priests and church intellecdtuals have found ways to justify their religion and practices. Intellectual scams are not much more enjoyable than red-neck ones.

We let lawyers do pretty much the same thing with the law and look what we're stuck with. Humans can't self-justify their way out of a wet paper bag.

... which does not contextualize Biblical literature within history, philosophy, science, and anthropology as the Catholic church does.

Ummm ... why does the bible need to be contextualised within history? Did God change along the way? Did God plan His communication strategy so that only highly educated "Catholic historians" can get the message right?

From my own experience in the Catholic Church, including being educated by the Christian Brothers, I can say that almost NOBODY actually reads the full Bible (including the OT). They rely almost entirely on the prescribed readings cherry picked by the Catholic hierarchy to control what the flock hears and thinks about. When I did get around to reading the whole Bible I was stunned, no ... gobsmacked , at how much content the Catholic Church had quietly suppressed.

As for contextualising within science ... what a joke!? Last time I was in a Catholic Church I heard: "Let us pray that scientists looking for cures to diseases such as cancer and AIDS are blessed with patience and knowledge." What an insult!? ... that their Git of a God would withhold such information for millennia and then suddenly "bless" the toiling scientists by revealing titbits of critical knowledge in response to prayers?

The Catholic Church, historically a staunch resistor of scientific progress, is rapidly being dragged to confront its own dishonesty and irrelevance. Where are the apologies from the Catholic Church for getting it so wrong on:

geocentrism?

cause of lightning?

missionaries spreading deadly diseases to indigenous peoples around the globe?

Hello, Most of your objections to the existence of a loving God seem to be based on modern-day American Christianity, which does not contextualize Biblical literature within history, philosophy, science, and anthropology as the Catholic church does. In fact, modern-day American Christianity, both in belief and practice, is indeed full of holes.However, the Catholic faith has answers to every objection to the "God of the Bible" that you have raised; and they're not puny justifications either. Can you please provide a list of the philosophers, scientists, historians, and anthropologists of whom you've read who have concluded that the God featured in Judeo-Christian literature exists? Since you are an "intelligent person living in the 21st century," I'm sure you've "take[n] some time to look at the data." Respectfully,[name removed]

If they had all the answers then 38,000+ other Christian sects wouldn't exist.

Is that the snake that tricked Eve? (and OP, I was Catholic...did the 1st thru 12th grade thing with nuns) Catholics like to think they have all the answers because they are the originals. Just another in a long line of god/man myths. The Church just has a long history of control and power...still a scam.

.However, the Catholic faith has answers to every objection to the "God of the Bible" that you have raised; and they're not puny justifications either.

"God has a plan" and "God works in mysterious ways" ARE puny. And of the mountains of apologia that the Catholic church has produced, well more than half can be boiled down to one of those two statements.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Hi folks. I'm the one who asked the question. Does anyone actually have an answer to it?Thanks, Anne

obviously none you want to hear.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Welcome Anne, it's great to have someone from the mailbox actually show up.

Personally I don't make any effort to read apologists and excusiologists. I've tried a few times over the decades but soon got put off by the special pleading, Pascal's wager, and 'god-of-the-gaps' type of arguments.

Some of the others here will have done a more thorough job I'm sure.

Please feel free to post a list of the Scientists and Philosophers (or just their arguments) you think we ought to take seriously

First, why would your god allow two nescient humanoids to be led off-course by a Talking Snake™? Surely an omniscient being knew the snake was there and had a pretty good idea of what would happen.

Secondly, could you please send Me a Talking Snake™? I've been trying to get one for several years now, and no one's managed to find Me one so far.

Actually Catholicism rejects the literal interpretation of the Bible. So attempting to phrase questions in the form of Bible literalism does nothing to undermine their viewpoint.

However, if they reject Bible literalism, ask them about what methodology that they use in deciding if a particular pronouncement or story within the Bible is correct, or just a divinely inspired fable.(spoilers: the answers is an appeal to authority, which will end up with circular reasoning)

« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 10:30:41 PM by Hatter23 »

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Catholics ARE biblical literalists - but only for cherry picked parts, e.g.

Quote

Matthew 26 26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

And that happens to be exactly where a Nun lied to me for Christ - my first recollection of psychological abuse at the hands of Catholics When I was 6 years old in preparation for first holy communion I was warned not to bite the host because somebody who did so had his mouth fill with blood - proof that the wafer is the body of Christ Forty-eight years later I still vividly remember the fear and confusion in my trembling little body as I was kneeling the pews watching people coming back from communion chewing away at those stupid dry wafers in their mouths.

And if in any doubt Catholics take it literally then check out this theological mumbo jumbo fabricated around the idea of "Real Presence":

Quote

Hence Christ is present in the sacrament with His Flesh and Blood, Body and Soul, Humanity and Divinity.

Hi folks. I'm the one who asked the question. Does anyone actually have an answer to it?Thanks, Anne

You asked for a list of academics who agreed with your position. For one thing, it isn't our role to dig up your supportive evidence: which would only be an argument from authority anyway. For another thing, it would be a very short list and, if you're content to use fallacious arguments, would simply allow us to use both an argument from authority and an argument from majority.

Yes but this is one point where the Protestants, which are more inclined to be literalists, believe it to be figuartive, and Catholics are literalists when they are more inclinded to to be figurative interpretionists.

Because when there is no science or fact, anything goes.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Yes but this is one point where the Protestants, which are more inclined to be literalists, believe it to be figuartive, and Catholics are literalists when they are more inclinded to to be figurative interpretionists.

Because when there is no science or fact, anything goes.

Not the church I went to.

They were extremely anal about the drink being served because it had to look exactly like blood. I jokingly said, "Why not just use blood?" They didn't like that but I did get some laughs from those around my age.

Hello, Most of your objections to the existence of a loving God seem to be based on modern-day American Christianity, which does not contextualize Biblical literature within history, philosophy, science, and anthropology as the Catholic church does. In fact, modern-day American Christianity, both in belief and practice, is indeed full of holes.However, the Catholic faith has answers to every objection to the "God of the Bible" that you have raised; and they're not puny justifications either. Can you please provide a list of the philosophers, scientists, historians, and anthropologists of whom you've read who have concluded that the God featured in Judeo-Christian literature exists? Since you are an "intelligent person living in the 21st century," I'm sure you've "take[n] some time to look at the data." Respectfully,[name removed]

Anne, As we think things through in life, it becomes obvious that the idea of an omniscient being that would set things up so poorly (read the debates here as far as evolution of body organs such as eyes, or the spleen, or the evolution of viruses and diseases) points to the truth that no such being exists. As we have said before here, why would 3/4 of the earth be ocean when humans can't survive under water? So mankind continues looking at all this teaching as allegory here and there, factual truth here and there, with everyone picking and choosing what is and what isn't truth - how absurd for humans to base so much on and be positive who is correct and who is not.

Sure, wisdom from so many philosophies is good, from Buddhism to Islam to Christianity to Socrates and different Greek secular teachers, etc. But this idea of a deity looks to be wrong. Certainly not sure enough to kill other humans based on one set of beliefs. Shouldn't the ideas and lifestyles of atheists deserve every bit of respect as the ideas and lifestyles of Catholics - tell me, where does allegory and fact meet in your definition of heaven and hell? And shouldn't Catholics (that can stand outside of their views and examine them objectively) see that celibacy and repressed homosexually has caused so much horror in society - tell me you are convinced the Catholics have any more of a correct interpretation of reality.